[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100607225010.342e2fab@jacob-laptop>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 22:50:10 -0700
From: jacob pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sfi: fix ioapic gsi range
> > Background:
> > In Moorestown/Medfield platforms, there is no legacy IRQs, all gsis
> > and irqs are one to one mapped, including those < 16. Specifically,
> > IRQ0 and IRQ1 are used for per-cpu timers. So without this patch,
> > IOAPIC pin to IRQ mapping is off by one.
>
> The patch looks mostly reasonable the comment is wrong.
>
> You may not use a 1-1 mapping if you don't have legacy irqs. Linux
> irqs 0-15 are the ISA irqs you may not use those irq numbers for
> something different on any architecture, but especially not on x86.
> The gsi numbers are firmware specific and you may treat however you
> want.
[jacob pan] If we don't have ISA irqs, why can't we have gsi# = irq#
for the legacy IRQ range? On Moorestown, we are re-using legacy irqs.
e.g.
sh-4.0# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0 CPU1
0: 1512 0 IO-APIC-edge apbt0
1: 0 1482 IO-APIC-edge apbt1
9: 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi dw_spi
10: 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi mrst_i2c
11: 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi mrst_i2c
12: 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi mrst_i2c
23: 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi intel_scu_ipc
27: 21 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists